I think one specific requirement of the Big (Money) Film Industry remains to be remembered... Unlike we who know the stories like our own pockets - or more or less so - and despite the fact that there are millions of Tolkien fans out there, most of the viewers of these films don't know the stories before, or that is at least the way the studios see things (and they're probably correct in their polls as there is a lot of money involved).
So many of these things in the films we friends of Tolkien's writing have a great dislike on - like Aragorn falling the cliff, or Denethor's one-dimensionality, or "freshing up" the dwarves - are due to the fact that they have to sell the films to people who don't know the story already.
The interesting question in this regard (aka. concerning Jackson & Boyens as personalities - if and when that clearly interests someone - and the role of the marketing departments of the studios) should actually be not that much "do they think they made the story better than the prof", but whether they were doing all that stuff the way they did because the studios forced them to do a few cliffhangers (
) or to cut down some intricacies to make it more simple and interesting to a non-Tolkien fan so that s/he could follow the multiple characters and plotlines, and to have the moments of suspense as to how things will end up?
One who is not familiar with the books doesn't know whether Aragorn is going to play a role in the future... so him dropping off the cliff is a suspense-thing for a viewer who doesn't know the plot - and emotianally quite charging as well! (I hated it as much as anyone!!!)
I mean really, we fans or
afficionados are a minority after all and it is a bit too much to ask that a multimillion-dollar bussiness would serve only our interests - as nice as it would be. Our money wouldn't pay for the film-budgets...
That said, I do agree with
Boro - among many others - in adoring the visual imagery of the films (and Howard Shore's musical interpretation of it), the "PJ universe" if you wish, and just plain subjectively hating most of the various changes they've made to the initial storyline and to the spirit of Tolkien.
The spirit of Tolkien gets especially beaten in the Hobbit, but even here a disclaimer is to the point. No, "The Hobbit" isn't without problems even as a literary work as it walks the thin line between a funny children's story and a more "serious" prequel to what happened afterwards... I know it was written first and the whole saga and the universe came afterwards - but despite that, I see it still as a story struggling to balance itself between a children's story and and an adult-tale. Like the movie which has those kind of dark and gory battle-scenes that are clearly meant to look "realistic" and thus bad - and the slapstick-combos fex. in the Goblin King's Hall with all the "funny stuff" involved in the fight and flight...